User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 2

Starkville, Mississippi
I couldn't help but notice the back and forth on the Starkville article. I too am pretty tight on who gets listed as a notable person. The consensus decision comes from WikiProject Cities/US Guideline which states that notable people "were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". If the person only lived there to go to school, they get listed on the school's alumni list. Also, working in a city is no guarantee the person ever lived there. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am another editor who works on NP sections and agree with what you say above. Dying in a community doesn't make a person automatically from a community either. Just recently I removed a 'People who died in Poughkeepise section' from Poughkeepsie, New York. An editor came along and restored it but in a 3rd edit, the section was eliminated with one of its two entries moved up into the NP section. The other person had only died in Poughkeepsie and his name was totally removed. Note- If a NP dies and his obituary says he died at home in a community, of course he can be listed in the community NP section. My experience with the Poughkeepsie article made me create a NP section for Millbrook, New York and discover the use of a non-WP:RS in several articles and curtail their usage....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate both of you expressing your agreement. It doesn't appear that anything beneficial will come from the ANI thread, but I will keep in mind the specific policy if I find myself working on such pages in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thank you so much for such a kind message. You definitely made me smile (and kinda, sorta, maybe, almost cry). Lepricavark (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ken Vining
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking an interest
I appreciate you stepping in. As a long-time editor here, believe me I know what the 3RR rule is. But this person I'm "warring" with has been on Wikipedia for all of one day. He/she is clearly trying to white-wash references to Gurbaksh Chahal's domestic violence convictions. I just hate to see that. 00:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the IP has an agenda and I understand your frustration. It's just that I don't want to see you get blocked for exceeding 3RR. I'm not quite sure what to do next. Lepricavark (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what to do next either. What are you supposed to do when somebody, as you say, clearly has an agenda? When something as obvious as this goes on here in the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Chisme (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of writing an ANI report. It should be up in 5-10 minutes. Feel free to weigh in there once I have posted my report. Lepricavark (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, really appreciate that Lepricavark. BTW, what does your name mean? Chisme (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. To quote from my user page, My username is a fusion of the names of several of my favorite automobiles: Le (Buick LeSabre), pri (Chevy Caprice), ca (Chevy Corsica), va (Oldsmobile Achieva), rk (Lincoln Mark VIII). It's a rather odd name. Lepricavark (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nick Castellanos
I have no problem with some edits. However, he prefers to go by Nicholas and not Nick per Tigers website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regkenny25 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that, but it remains to be seen if that will become his commonly used name in the media. In the meantime, the infobox and the article title should be consistent. Lepricavark (talk)

In the interest of full disclosure
I've been wrestling for a while now with whether I should come clean, so to speak, and I have decided to do so. You'll remember me from my days as and, and I also edited under the usernames of  (for less than a month) and. Three of those four accounts are currently blocked, but the first two (ASO and NA) were by my explicit request. The Arena account is not blocked (I don't recall for certain why I quit using it, but it may be that I forgot my password), and the Mellowed Fillmore account was originally blocked when I decided to go out in a full blaze of glory, an episode that admittedly reflects very poorly on me. However, the block was reversed by as a gesture of good faith, forcing me to admit that my vandal-esque actions that led to a block were not accidental. I was reblocked by Floq, as he put it, "at user's request, as a kind of enforced retirement." Since all three of those blocks are essentially by my request, I don't think I am guilty of block evasion. Also, during the time between my editing as NA and as AFR, I committed an act of IP vandalism. I am not at all proud of that moment.

I never linked my Mellowed Fillmore account with my prior accounts, and my Arena Football account consisted of little, if any, involvement in the behind-the-scenes community stuff.

I cannot prove that any of those prior accounts are mine, but I think you would find that I edit in many of the same areas as I did under those names. Of course, that means that I am probably not properly adhering to the cleanstart expectations, which is one reason why I should come clean. Moreover, I am tired of feeling like I am keeping secrets from everyone else. It's time for all of you to know who you are dealing with. I would like to think I am a productive contributor (I've grown up a little since some of the very stupid things I did with my prior accounts). I am not looking to create a big stir, but I am looking to let all of you know the truth. Lepricavark (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I hope you recall the advice I gave you previously, should you ever wish to leave/take a break again: just stop editing, without making a big deal about it. Thanks for your assistance with Editor of the Week! isaacl (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I should have handled it last time. And thanks for the thanks. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Shades of Ferdinand Waldo Demara, the Great Imposter! I have had no problem with any of your personifications. All were/are good guys. Buster Seven   Talk  13:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged: I don't have much to add beyond Isaacl's excellent advice. I'm not terribly concerned about the imperfect clean start. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pinged but am happy. You got Precious twice that way, and I got one of the nicest replies ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you. The kind words and good advice are much appreciated. Lepricavark (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

notability criteria
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sports_notability_guideline&diff=778947492&oldid=778944797 this edit]: surely you understood the editor was implicitly asking for a consensus to implement the proposed changes? I suggest removing your comment, which amounts to a tautology (nothing will be changed until a consensus is reached), but also because I'm (probably just wishfully) hoping that all the discussions will remain mostly empty and the RfC either reduced in scope or dropped for now. If all the discussions are nearly blank, maybe that'll discourage anyone else from joining in. isaacl (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sarcasm was unnecessary. I agree with your reasoning and have removed the comment. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Unfortunately (for my wishful thinking) another comment was added; I fear a huge unmanageable set of dozens of conversations on the same page may break out... isaacl (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt much will come of it. The OP sabotaged his own RfC with that format. Lepricavark (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It can still eat up a lot of time, which is a pity. isaacl (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully someone steps in and shuts it down soon. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The notability guideline and why I proposed changes
. The reason is simple: It looked(and looks) like at least some parts of this guideline have been influenced by those interested in the subject in a way that results in badly sourced articles being kept.(and I was not the only one who thought that) WP:NSPORTS is intended to temporarily save articles from WP:GNG deletion when the required sources are difficult to find, but not to save articles from deletion that can not be properly sourced at all. And indeed, there were complaints about that.Burning Pillar (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But why do you care about this? This was an issue you were raising basically from the moment you registered your account. And why do you so brazenly disregard the advice of more experienced editors? You still have almost no experience working in the mainspace. I suggest, as have others, that you get some substantial mainspace experience before you seek to influence, let alone unilaterally change, policies related to the mainspace. Lepricavark (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI again
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. "Djln (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)" was supposed ot notify you, he didn't.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  15:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Lepricavark (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Your input would be a big help
Hello Leprecavark. I was so pleased to see Softlavender named Editor of the Week. I thought she should have one of those nice virtual plaques that are placed at WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame. My skills at creating things like this are rudimentary at best. Even that may be too generous of a word :-) Nevertheless, I have has a go at making one here. When you have a moment would you please take a look at it. Any suggestions for improvements would be most appreciated. I'm not entirely happy with the caption for the picture for instance. Also when it is finished I do not know what the process is for adding it to the HoF. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to check it out at the moment, so let me get back to you, hopefully later this evening. Lepricavark (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - there is no hurry at all. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for making you wait so long. It looks pretty good to me. The date should read 'May 27' instead of 'May 18', but otherwise it's a really nice plaque. Lepricavark (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your plaque looks great! The Hall of Fame has fallen into dis-use over the past year due (or more) to my in-attention. The doors are open but I'm not sure anyone visits. Creating a plaque was once a part of the EotW process for each recipient but I must admit I dropped the ball a while back and no-one else has picked it up. The plaque was distributed a few days after the award and was also displayed on the WER project page.  I'm not even sure I remember how to display a new plaque at the Hall of Fame. As time permits I will do my best to get Softlavender's plaque to be displayed.  Buster Seven   Talk  12:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Early in 2017 things changed at the Hall and I'm at a loss on how to implement a new entry. Maybe can help?  Buster Seven   Talk  12:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I tried tidying things up in order to not have it be a total nightmare, and I only got about halfway through. I've updated the lists and (hopefully) made future updates a bit easier, and I'll keep working towards that goal. Basically, each plaque is on a subpage, and that page gets transcluded to the Hall. However, the naming system is entirely too complicated, and I've got a few changes to make to that (one which I'll implement unilaterally and another which I'll probably discuss first). Hopefully this will make everything easier in the long run. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For future reference, WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Infobox exists, which makes creation a bit easier. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Primefac for your continued efforts to make life easier at WER. Once you make the changes you mention (no hurry necessary), I may begin to try to catch-up on the missing plaques. I will wait before I start and will most likely ask you for advice on the best way to proceed when the time comes.  Buster Seven   Talk  14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all involved for your input and for taking care of placing the plaque on S's talk page and in the HoF. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your persistent work in moving all those pages to date-based names. I had not envisioned a need for putting each infobox on its own subpage when the Hall of Fame was established, so it only came about later in the process. Feedback on any of your ideas are just a post away at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week! isaacl (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A great effort that will make the project of filling in the blank space for each plaque so much easier than I had envisioned a few hours ago. Then it was a daunting task. Now anyone that wants to can pitch in with ideas, images, comments, etc. Just go to the Hall of Fame, see the editors name listed at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017...click on the blue link....and create a plaque. Buster Seven   Talk  20:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dating the Award
"rica"...with this diff I have added the next six weeks to the Hall of Fame. Just so we are all on the same page, I wanted to point something out. The "Official" date for distributing the Award should always be Sunday. You have free rein, based on RealLife demands, to distribute the Award anytime over a given week-end...Friday, Saturday, Sunday...it's your call. This way I can pre-load the Hall of Fame banners in preperation for when they are needed and not have to worry about the actual date you give it out. Buster Seven   Talk  14:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. Lepricavark (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Grzanich
IronGargoyle (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I appreciate the kind words very much. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
As you participated in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957, you may be interested in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for keeping that AN/I thread open. I was resigned to the thread being archived, and him concluding that he had been justified once again. It was only because you kept plodding away that an admin finally took action. Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Hopefully you won't have to deal with this anymore, but moving forward I wouldn't worry too much about what he says on his own talk page. He's been blocked twice for harassing you, so I don't think anyone is going to listen to what he has to say about you. Happy editing! Lepricavark (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Community-imposed editing restriction
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=788995102&oldid=788994643 this edit]: note a community consensus to place an editing restriction on an editor is a community-imposed ban, by definition. An indefinite block is the tool used to implement the restriction. There was a discussion not long ago where an editor tried to draw a distinction, but other than the words people use when making the proposal ("propose indefinite block" vs "propose community ban"), there is no difference. isaacl (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. I wasn't necessarily looking for a community-imposed ban/block. Any admin could, AFAIK, have imposed a block unilaterally. At any rate, I'm not overly concerned with the outcome of the thread because I believe it has been established that any further disruption will lead to sanctions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A heads up
I have made 3 nominations over the past week ... and two of then sent me a "Thank you" notification ... which surprised me. I couldn't explain why 'till I realized that I had used "User10|_____" and then signed it, which sent a notification. No real harm done. Next time I'll know better. TC, &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   22:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol. It happens to the best of us, as you already know! Lepricavark (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

hi
I got here after you thanked me – your userpage indeed made me smile, and although I'm a day late, congratulations on having spent a full year on Wikipedia on this account! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't realize it had been a year. Lepricavark (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Wally Pipp
Hi. I never thought I'd edit Wikipedia. I do have the reference re Wally Pipp. I looked this up quite awhile ago and finally landed on snopes.com. It has the reference date of June 3, 1925, New York Times, following with "later in the week" of June 3, 1925. I don't know how to insert the "[ref]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaureenF57 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to send me the link to the snopes article if you wish, although I don't think snopes is a great source for sports information. There is an entire section in the Pipp article devoted to the various theories as to why Pipp sat out that day. I don't think anything else needs to be added to the article, but I'll take a look at the snopes article if you wish to send it along. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * It was a pleasure to support your candidacy. Best wishes, Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA Cullen328
Omitting the ambivalent, and hopefully wrongly interpreted, "take care", would have increased the perceived sensitivity to a large amount. In spite of opposing to all the PC-derived crap of urbanity, civility, safety of spaces, ... I still try to adhere to a higher level of sensitivity, more fully de rigeur, than what I perceived here from the verbiage of an admin to be. Purgy (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem the slightest bit ambivalent to me. Someone cast a POINTy neutral !vote not based on the candidate's qualifications. Cullen responded in a very gracious and sensitive manner. Lepricavark (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

/* undefined */ new section
I don't know you or even if you are an admin, but your patronizing comments at ANi about me "jumping on board" or using the phrase "admin armor" suggest you may be part of the problem where regular editors can't easily defend themselves against Admins who lie, launch personal attacks or take baseless admin actions for personal vendettas. If all of us were allowed to act like AR has the site would fall into a mudslinging fest with no accountability. Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, as you could have discovered with a minimum of effort. And you are the originator of the "admin armor" line, if I'm not mistaken. You clearly have a grudge against AR and it very much seems like you want to settle an old score against him, which disqualifies you from complaining about admins with personal vendettas. Lepricavark (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Omar Narváez (baseball)
Hello! Your submission of Omar Narváez (baseball) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Omar Narváez (baseball)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw  talk 05:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Awarding the EOTW
Before I take over dispensing the award I wonder if you can give me instructions on how. I think it may be simpler, now, than when I did it (before Kevin and you). Thanks, &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   15:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was planning to present the award this week, perhaps later today, before stepping down. Do you want to watch how I do it, or do you want me to provide detailed directions? It is fairly straightforward. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Detailed instructions might be best. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   04:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made my final EotW presentation. I've got other things to attend to right now, but I will try to send you detailed directions within the next couple of days. Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   22:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay in this response (what a week!). Here are your requested instructions: after you have opened the recipients talk page and clicked on 'New section' (I usually use "Editor of the Week" as my section title, but that's not normative), you'll want to post the WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient notification template into the new section. This template is mostly self-explanatory, and I have found that contrary to the instructions, unless I missed something, you don't actually need to use a special diffs template for any diffs found within the nomination statement. Also, for the "briefreason" field, I usually began with the word 'your' so that the resulting sentence will make better sense. At any rate, after I had finished filling out the template and posted it on the page, I would then remove that editor's entry on the accepted nominations page and add their name to recipient listing found here. These are also both fairly self-explanatory, but as a helpful tip, after I save my edit on the user's talk page, I click the 'permanent link' button in the left-hand sidebar and use the diff number found in the url for the diff field in the recipient list template. I know that is a lot of information, but it really is a simple procedure and I am sure you'll do just fine. Lepricavark (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)